OLYMPIA, Wash. – The Washington Department of Ecology made recommendations this week for what the state could do to handle and fund the risks that come with increased shipments of oil by rail and water.

Its report says 3 million gallons a week already move through Washington by train, a number that's expected to balloon if new fuel-export terminals are built.

Three terminals proposed for Grays Harbor are on hold pending court-ordered environmental and public health reviews.

Kristen Boyles, the Earthjustice attorney on that case for the Quinault Indian Nation and conservation groups, says the Ecology Department's recommendations will spawn some legislation, but she predicts it won't go far enough.

"And I suspect that there will be any number of proposed bills,” she says. “I'm afraid that they will all be nibbling around the edges of the problem, instead of saying that we don't have to have this in our communities if we don't want it."

The Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study makes a dozen recommendations, most of which involve finding permanent funding for more planners and inspectors, as well as equipment and emergency training for local first-responders.

The study asks the Legislature to amend some state laws to clarify who has financial responsibility for oil spill damages and cleanup costs.

Boyles says a state court of appeals is also considering that issue. But she's concerned the focus is on preparing for more oil shipments instead of preventing them.

"What is needed, I think, is a broader, bolder vision for stopping more crude-by-rail development, for preventing the building of new terminals, for protecting our waterways, for honoring our tribal trust responsibilities."

The Ecology Department delivers a final report on March 1.

This week, Earthjustice also sued the U.S. Department of Transportation for refusing to ban the use of DOT-111 rail tank cars for shipping crude oil, saying they are prone to puncture, spills and fires in train accidents.

The federal agency has issued a safety advisory. The suit, filed on behalf of the Sierra Club and ForestEthics, says tougher action is needed.




get more stories like this via email

A new report from nonprofit The Climate Center has unearthed historical documents that show the big oil companies orchestrated a tax break that allows them to avoid paying an estimated $75 million to $146 million a year.

The California Legislature adopted the so-called "Water's Edge" tax policy in 1986.

Barry Vesser, chief operating officer with The Climate Center, said it allows companies to decide which of their earnings are taxable in California, and exclude those linked to operations elsewhere, thus dramatically reducing what they owe in taxes.

"The report shows is that companies like Chevron and Shell and Exxon, back in the '70s and '80s, worked really hard to get this exemption into the tax code, in spite of the fact that lots of advocates and many people in government were saying that this is a bad idea, including the head of the Franchise Tax Board at the time," Vesser explained.

The report estimates that "Water's Edge" costs California about $4 billion a year across all industries. The oil companies argue that it is unfair for a state to tax their global earnings. However, oil-rich Alaska prohibits this type of tax exemption.

Climate advocates are pressing California lawmakers to end all subsidies for these companies in budget negotiations this spring. Vesser noted that last year, California's budget cut billions from climate programs to help fill a $46 billion deficit. Meanwhile, Chevron, Shell and Exxon reported $83 billion in profits in 2023.

"Oil and gas companies spent $31.4 million in 2024," he continued. "They broke a record even in the first three-quarters of all-time spending at the California State Legislature. So, these companies are working to undermine sensible public policy outcomes."

Assemblymember Damon Conolly, D-San Rafael, said in a statement that eliminating the Water's Edge tax break for multinational oil and gas corporations is a common-sense solution to make polluting industries pay their fair share to fix the environmental and health problems they helped create.

A new report found New York State needs a more equitable grid transmission process.

The Energy Justice Law and Poverty Center report noted investments in front-line communities are not being identified or prioritized, which goes against the state's climate laws. It also showed a severe lack of transparency in upgrading grid transmission infrastructure.

Raya Salter, executive director of the center, said the current process reinforces long-standing inequities which the state's climate law accounts for.

"The CLCPA (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act) acknowledged there have been historic and unfair disinvestments in communities of color and low-income communities when it comes to our energy systems," Salter pointed out. "There have been a disproportionate number of impacts on those same communities due to pollution."

Minority communities face high impacts from peaker plants and other polluting energy infrastructure. However, New York is phasing out high nitrogen oxide-emitting peaker plants by year's end.

Some ways to make the process more equitable include tracking impacts utility investments have on environmental justice communities and ensuring the state's Public Service Commission accounts for equity and justice impacts.

Implementing the recommendations could be challenging, but Salter feels there are few alternatives. If nothing is done, she believes a utility company's multibillion dollar investments will not do as much to improve health outcomes for communities harmed by energy infrastructure pollution. Salter noted one challenge is the transmission process' lack of transparency.

"The utilities are kind of being asked for themselves how much investment they should be making, and we need to make sure the light is shined as brightly as possible on what these investments will be and how they will be made," Salter urged. "Another challenge is that many reports have shown New York State is behind on our clean energy mandate."

The primary reasons New York fell behind on its climate goals range from lacking political will from state lawmakers to pandemic-related inflation on construction costs derailing some offshore wind projects.


get more stories like this via email

Backers say a law adding nuclear power to the definition of "green" energy will give Ohioans another option to cut carbon emissions but some environmentalists are skeptical.

House Bill 308, signed in December by Gov. Mike DeWine, is designed to open the state to nuclear power research and development. However, critics are concerned it could be used to diminish the roles of renewables, such as wind and solar energy in reaching future climate goals.

Rep. Sean Brennan, D-Parma, is a co-sponsor of the bill. He is unsure the state can reach its climate goals with the current mix of renewables.

"My belief is that if we're ever going to wean ourselves off of coal and natural gas, fossil fuels, we've got to expand our nuclear portfolio in Ohio. We just have to do it," Brennan asserted. "Wind and solar just aren't going to do it for us."

Environmental groups such as Earthjustice say the measure is similar to a controversial 2022 law classifying natural gas as green energy despite the fact its use creates hydrocarbon emissions. Critics also fear the language could be used to divert public funding from renewable energy projects.

Brennan noted the bill does not promise any financial incentives for nuclear power or divert public funds from renewable energy projects. He argued opening up to nuclear energy, which does not emit carbon into the atmosphere, will help attract jobs and federal funding.

"We need to continue to expand on solar and wind," Brennan contended. "I truly believe we have to do that, but I believe nuclear is going to be hugely important for our future energy independence, and hopefully, Ohio will become an exporter of electricity in the future."

Ohio ended its renewable energy standard in 2019 in the midst of a corruption and bribery scandal involving nuclear and coal-powered energy plants in the state. Brennan emphasized Ohio needs to move forward in its efforts to fight climate change.

"I decided to join the legislation because I believe it's a good idea to send a message to stakeholders that Ohio is open to explore expanding nuclear, whereas some states have moratoriums on nuclear," Brennan added. "I think it's going to be important to our future energy needs in Ohio."

This story is based on original reporting by Kathiann M. Kowalski for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email